Hellcat Vs Zero

Hellcat Vs Zero

I'm reading a book on Essex Class Carriers. Mostly it's a good book but one statement has me confused. It discusses the Hellcat and says it was faster
and more powerful than the Zero. It then goes on to say the Hellcat was not as maneuverable as a Zero. Is this true?

What US plane Navy or otherwise would have matched the Zero so far as maneuverability?

IMHO the F8F Bearcat would have come the closest. IIRC it was designed after the US had recovered the Zeke from the Aleutians. According to Swanborough &
Bowers United States Navy Aircraft since 1911 design was begun in 1943 and it was intended to operate from
CVEs, mainly in the interceptor role. It was small, compared to the F6F and F4U, but had the same R-2800 engine . Performance was outstanding, but range was
limited.

The F6F was faster, more powerfull in engineoutput and had a faster dive, but the A6M still could climb batter and outmanouvre the F6F, while her 20mm cannons
could deliver a heavier punch at longer range (although much less ammo.) If the pilots and conditions were equal, the A6M would win normally. The F6F had the
upperhand in a diving attack when in an advantage possition and in a level chase as well. In a pure dogfight the A6M outturned the bigger F6F and would
normally win. Luckily Japan was already out of veteran pilots by the time the F6F came around, so the better trained USN aviators normally were more succesfull
then the lesser trained IJN pilots of the warbreed IJN aviators, who had shorter trainigtimes than their deceased prewar collegues.

I admit, I know very little about air combat and the technicalities involved, but the way I read it, what he's saying is "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL -
Zero has a theoretical advantage in a pure Dogfight situation, BUT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED was Hellcat performed better due to better pilot quality"

To me that sounded like he was stating an opinion (obviously one you disagree with) about the THEORETICAL advantage he sees the Zero having, but accepting that
the REAL WORLD performance didn't stand up as much as the pure stats suggested.

You might not agree with what he says, but that doesn't automatically make him a troll.

Fermi2 wrote:
I'm reading a book on Essex Class Carriers. Mostly it's a good book but one statement has me confused. It discusses the Hellcat and says it was
faster and more powerful than the Zero. It then goes on to say the Hellcat was not as maneuverable as a Zero. Is this true?

What US plane Navy or otherwise would have matched the Zero so far as maneuverability?

Defining "maneuverability" is not trivial, and the Japanese had a slightly different definition than did the US, whose definition
wasn't quite the same as those used by anybody else. This is further complicated by the fact that aircraft performance is heavily dependent on altitude.

Doubtless the Zero had a smaller instantaneous turn radius and greater instantaneous turn rate than the Hellcat -- both are strong functions of wing loading
(more accurately, wing loading times lift coefficient) and the Zero had a wing loading quite low for a fighter of its generation -- but the Hellcat probably
had superior acceleration and faster roll response (especially at high speeds; Zero's reportedly had aileron forces that increased rapidly with speed;
the Hellcats did not). Aircraft change direction by banking, and US fighter designers placed a high import on roll acceleration, which requires powerful,
well-balanced ailerons: so it's quite likely that the Hellcat could start its turn faster than could the Zero.

The Zeke's 20mm cannon did have a greater range than the .50 Browning. However, not only did it carry less ammo, it was fairly low velocity. It was
harder to get a hit in a dogfight. Hellcats (and most other US planes) could absorb some 20mm (and a good many mg hits) and continue to fight. (Of course it
depended on where the hits were.) US pilots were also more likely to survive after their plane was hit. On the other hand, a Zeke hit by a burst from 6 (or
4) .50s usually blew up or fell apart, or both.

If that is the only criteria then I recommend the Fokker D.VII. It will fly circles around the A6M at low speed. However if I want to win the air battle then I
would prefer the F6F Hellcat.

The Fokker D.VII is widely regarded as the best German aircraft of the war. Its development was
championed by Manfred von Richthofen. In January 1918, Richthofen tested the D.VII in the trials at Adlershof but never had an opportunity to fly it in
combat. He was killed just days before it entered service. When introduced, the D.VII was not without problems. On occasion its wing ribs would fracture
in a dive or high temperatures would cause the gas tank to explode. Even so, the D.VII proved to be durable and easy to fly. As noted by one authority,
it had "an apparant ability to to make a good pilot out of mediocre material." When equipped with the BMW engine, the D.VII could outclimb any
Allied opponent it encountered in combat. Highly maneuverable at all speeds and altitudes, it proved to be more than a match for any of the British or
French fighter planes of 1918.

Gernerally the contemprary equal to the A6M in a dogfight was most likely the equally lightly build Supermarine Spitfire/Seafire, as this plane too was highly
manouvrable, heavily armed and fast as in a climb and roll. It was however sleeker and faster, while normally heavier gunned with two 20mm and four MG's
Opposed to the A6M it had adequate protection for the pilot. Serious disadvantage however was lack of range and very poor flightdeckperfomance during landing,
due to the narrow undercarriage. (most Seafire losses were landingaccidents on the carriers of the Royal Navy, rather than combatlosses.)

Generally I would choose the F4U for the Pacific fighterrole, due to its heavy punch (more ammo and sometimes with four 20 mm cannons) and speed, rather than
the slightly slower F6F. After the USN accepted the F4U for carrier service, it was the more effective fighter of the two, although the enemy was already
defeated by then.
Secondly the F4U continued to serve after the war, while ther F6F was deleted.

I admit, I know very little about air combat and the technicalities involved, but the way I read it, what he's saying is "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL -
Zero has a theoretical advantage in a pure Dogfight situation, BUT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED was Hellcat performed better due to better pilot quality"

To me that sounded like he was stating an opinion (obviously one you disagree with) about the THEORETICAL advantage he sees the Zero having, but accepting
that the REAL WORLD performance didn't stand up as much as the pure stats suggested.

You might not agree with what he says, but that doesn't automatically make him a troll.

Yes because he's a troll.

Guys I realize all the classical definitions of maneuverability. I was simply surprised by the statement about the Hellcat.

Hell, okay if we are going touse that logic, I'd rather be in a F-14.....lol.
Seriously, a plane that a Zero would have tangled with over the Pacific, either of those two. I have spoken with pilots of both types and both swear that their
aircraft was the best plane in the sky over the Pacific theater.
GUNNER

http://www.fockewulf190.n...kewu/develuk/fwa0a1uk.htm
The Fw-190A1 was a pre-production / prototype model with only 102 aircraft produced. The Fw-190A2, which began production in October 1941, was the first mass
production version. From the Fw-190A2 version onward the Butcher Bird normally carried 4 x 20mm cannon in the wings and 2 x MG in the engine cowl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4U_Corsair
WWII era F4Us were almost all armed with 6 x .50cal MGs in the wings. Just like other American fighter aircraft except the P-38 and P-39 (P-47 had 8 x .50cal).
Plenty of firepower for knocking down a Japanese Zero. But nowhere near as much as the Fw-190A packed.

When discussing heavy fighters like the Fw-190 and Corsair we need to think in terms of range / payload as the two items are interchangable. The Fw-190 had a
huge range / payload. Which is why over 2,000 were produced as fighter-bombers (Fw-190F and Fw-190G). Versions with the 1,700 hp BMW 801D-2 engine could carry
up to 1,800 kg (3,968 lbs) of additional weapons or fuel. The F4U-4 had a similiar external payload of 4,000 lbs. Neither aircraft will be carrying much fuel
if they are carrying 4,000 lbs of bombs. But I think it's safe to say that both aircraft have a huge range capability if carrying only fuel and wing
mounted cannons / machineguns.